Posted by Edward429451: I think we can [tell whether a present threat of unlawful force existed]. We had a lone female with child in tow and the perv starts acting aggressive and pawing himself. Do we not believe the lady?

She said he "approached "aggressively" and sat down. Can we infer from that that she believed he was about to strike or grab her and that she had to draw to stop him? I don't know.

Was she knowledgeable of the law? I don't know.

Quote:

Posted by davem: So a guy goes up to a strange woman and flashes. I'd say he may be capable of anything.

Look--it's not a matter of what he may be capable of, though that is one element. It is all about what she reasonably believed that he was likely going to do, right then and there, at that moment, if she didn't prevent it.

People who do not understand that concept are likely to get into a lot of trouble.

I'm going to put in another plug for MAG-20. For anyone who thinks it costly, consider the possibility of losing everything due to not having an understanding of the use of force laws.

Holding off on the draw until he declared physical intention to harm? Perhaps she should have said excuse me Sir, do wish to do me harm today or perhaps rape me in front of my child?

Normal people do not go around exposing themselves to women or anyone. To behave in this manner clearly shows that he at least has a mental problem, and at most anything could happen. So she played it safe and drew on him. He could have jumped on her in an instant.

Are we trying to advocate this type of behavior as somehow being ok because of what John law may do, or some silly continuum of force ladder? With a woman? That's preposterous and would create loopholes for pervs. Continuum of force is for men.

People who do not understand that concept are likely to get into a lot of trouble.

The trouble this lady could have gotten into by not drawing her gun outweighs (I'm my mind) everything else. If he grabs her kid, then what? If he charges her and she tries to fleeing while carrying the child what are her chances. She could get into the ultimate "trouble" by giving this mentally defective man an opportunity at the upper hand

Posted by Edward429451: Normal people do not go around exposing themselves to women or anyone. To behave in this manner clearly shows that he at least has a mental problem, and at most anything could happen.

See below.

Quote:

Posted by TennJed: The trouble this lady could have gotten into by not drawing her gun outweighs (I'm my mind) everything else.

Could have=speculation.

Quote:

If he grabs her kid, then what? If he charges her and she tries to fleeing while carrying the child what are her chances. She could get into the ultimate "trouble" by giving this mentally defective man an opportunity at the upper hand

If...if...could.... Here's the rub: everyone one meets in a remote park might grab a kid or charge. Someone sitting on a bench with his clothing open and occupied with himself, however abnormal that behavior may be, most probably constitutes less of a threat of imminent danger of physical harm than someone casting furtive glances at the child, looking around, and continuing to approach.

But you cannot draw on them until you have some indication that it is immediately necessary to do so, or you will likely go to jail.

The lady here may well have had that indication; we weren't there. But one cannot go around drawing on people because of that they might do, or what "could happen", or because they are behaving abnormally. That's been true for centuries, screen fiction notwithstanding.

One may lawfully use force, or deadly force, and in some jurisdictions such as Washington State and a few others, display a firearm, when it is necessary to do so to protect and defend, but not to administer justice, or to indicate disapproval for abnormal behavior, or to take into account what could happen.

The key word is necessary---immediately necessary. The old formula of A, O, J, and P applies well, except that when the threshold is to defend against "presently threatened unlawful physical force" as it is here, "Ability" is defined differently from its traditional meaning in the context of self defense.

If...if...could.... Here's the rub: everyone one meets in a remote park might grab a kid or charge. Someone sitting on a bench with his clothing open and occupied with himself, however abnormal that behavior may be, most probably constitutes less of a threat of imminent danger of physical harm than someone casting furtive glances at the child, looking around, and continuing to approach.

But you cannot draw on them until you have some indication that it is immediately necessary to do so, or you will likely go to jail.

The lady here may well have had that indication; we weren't there. But one cannot go around drawing on people because of that they might do, or what "could happen", or because they are behaving abnormally. That's been true for centuries, screen fiction notwithstanding.

One may lawfully use force, or deadly force, and in some jurisdictions such as Washington State and a few others, display a firearm, when it is necessary to do so to protect and defend, but not to administer justice, or to indicate disapproval for abnormal behavior, or to take into account what could happen.

The key word is necessary---immediately necessary. The old formula of A, O, J, and P applies well, except that when the threshold is to defend against "presently threatened unlawful physical force" as it is here, "Ability" is defined differently from its traditional meaning in the context of self defense.

I don't think anyone here is advising on drawing their weapon on anyone they think might be dangerous. This man crossed a line. There is no question that he is mentally unstable and that he was fixed on this lady.

An obviously unstable man making threatening sexual gestures is quite a bit different than the average person you meet on the street that looks bad. What he was doing up the chances that the "what if" and "might"

. His actions were much more than abnormal. You are comparing this to normal day to day strangeness. This is much more than your abnormal behavior. 99% of SD situations involve some degree of what if. Is that really a gun in his pocket? You have to make quick decisions. His actions were a clear indication of a man that is more than abnormal

I might agree with your argument if she pulled the trigger. In this case she did what was the safest thing for her and her child when put in a situation that is much worse than normal

She said he "approached "aggressively" and sat down. Can we infer from that that she believed he was about to strike or grab her and that she had to draw to stop him? I don't know.

I am not sure what "approached aggressively" is beyond being a stranger that walked toward her that she did not want walking toward her. You can certainly approach aggressively without being aggressive to the person. If I walk up to you quickly to get your attention, I could be described as approaching aggressively, but isn't the same as being aggressive when approaching.

I think people have freaked out because "aggressive" was used, but in how it was used does not necessarily indicate actual aggression.

Quote:

I don't think anyone here is advising on drawing their weapon on anyone they think might be dangerous. This man crossed a line. There is no question that he is mentally unstable and that he was fixed on this lady.

Actually, you have no idea if he was mentally stable or not. He could have been perfectly stable, just not to a level that society likes or which would allow for his behaviors legally. He may be mentally ill, but stable in his illness. Also, there were two victims to witness the event. How do you know he wasn't fixated on the kid?

I appreciate your forthright statements

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011

Actually, you have no idea if he was mentally stable or not. He could have been perfectly stable, just not to a level that society likes or which would allow for his behaviors legally. He may be mentally ill, but stable in his illness. Also, there were two victims to witness the event. How do you know he wasn't fixated on the kid

I said he was fixated on the woman. The report said he told her she needed to watch. That was directed at her.

Quote:

just not to a level that society likes or which would allow for his behaviors legally

Lets look at this statement more closely. "Not that society likes" I am sorry but his actions are not proper in any society. This is not an issue of our society not allowing something that is no big deal, what he did is a very big deal. The fact that he would do this shows clear unstableness. You said yourself his actions do not allow for legal behavior, are we to assume that this situation would not get worse? People that are "stable in their mental illiness" should be able to seperate legal from illigal acts. If they cannot they are not "stable" enough to be free in society. Someone who should not be free in society should be considered dangerous and safety should then come first

This lady could only assume what this man's intent was. Given the fact he has directed his action at her and he is unable to seperate legal from illigal acts (your words) why should she assume he is not dangerous?

Please shed some more light on your "level that society likes" comment.

__________________Find out just how tall I am
By jumping in the middle of a river

Oldmarksman, if I came across as saying it was legally justified then that was not my intent. You may very well be correct about this type of situation as it stands in a court of law. I believe everyone should be well versed in the legalities of carrying a firearm, but situations will always come up that are in a bit of a grey area (like this) I have tried to state my opinion is, in a situation like this, that I would want my loved ones to put their safety first.

We obviously differ on his mental state and potential danger. That is fine we should agree to disagree. I see his actions as that of someone who is very likely dangerous and wanting to act in a dangerous manner. Sexual crimes are usually violent and dangerous to the victim. This man has crossed the line into not caring/knowing what is legal/moral. When that involves sexual activities, then that is dangerous path to be on. Someone who does this is crossing a line (IMHO) that warrants this lady putting her and her child's life before questions of legality. That us not to say I think we should put legal issues aside, I just feel sexual assault tends to be one type of activity that has more potential to be violent and dangerous.

**edit to add, I do not think someone should knowingly act in an illegal maner, but self defense involves quick actions. This woman did not pull the trigger. She kept the situation from esculating and she kept her family safe. I think we both agree that there needs to be "imminent danger of physical harm" Where we differ is on what is "immediate danger" There is no black and white or easy way to define this. In my opinion, a sexual crime directed at a person is "imminent danger of harm"

Objection, the man's medical stability is irrelevant, she's no Doctor, and has no duty to perform.

Perhaps he can be checked out after he puts his pee pee away and quits talking to the women, if he lives that long. I believe it's possible that the perverse nature of the aggression thereby created exigent circumstances for the Lady because she had a Child Charge with her. So there. I rest, Your Honor.

Posted by TennJed: The fact that he would do this shows clear unstableness.

We encounter mental instability all the time. Cause for concern, but not necessarily cause for the display of a weapon.

Quote:

This lady could only assume what this man's intent was.

Excellent point, and that is the crux of the situation in many self defense scenarios. The consequences of an incorrect assessment can be severe either way.

Quote:

Given the fact he has directed his action at her and he is unable to seperate legal from illigal acts (your words) why should she assume he is not dangerous?

She shouldn't, but that's not the question at all. The question is, what would give her reason to believe that he did present a threat of unlawful force, and at that moment.

That's in her jurisdiction. In most states, the threshold would be one of reasonable belief that he had the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to cause death or great bodily harm, and that she had no alternative but to draw.

But one more time, we're basing our discussion of her particular case on news reports, and we just don't know.

Quote:

Oldmarksman, if I came across as saying it was legally justified then that was not my intent. You may very well be correct about this type of situation as it stands in a court of law.

That was the original question.

Quote:

....I would want my loved ones to put their safety first.

A good way to do that would be to have the firearm ready first, which she did not; to warn the man, not threaten him with blowing his brains out; and to get out of there while exercising extreme vigilance.

Taking a chance on losing one's ability to own a firearm does not promote one's safety.

Quote:

We obviously differ on his mental state and potential danger.

Not necessarily. But the key question is one of an immediate threat, not "potential danger."

Quote:

I just feel sexual assault tends to be one type of activity that has more potential to be violent and dangerous.

I have observed persons performing the same act as the perp discussed here three or four times in the last four decades. None of them attacked anyone physically, or even appeared to pose such a threat. Had I pulled a gun on any of them, I would not be carrying one now.

On the other hand, I have seen individuals watching women walking to their cars and looking around for witnesses; I have stopped a robbery by recognizing the signs; my doctor's wife has witnessed two car-jackings in the same place. These were the dangerous ones.

And again, potential does not justify drawing a firearm in any state or US territory.

The point is to draw when you have to and to do so timely, and to not draw when you don't have to.

A high court ruling in one state really got my attention. The ruling was that if someone pointed a gun when it was not justified, the other person, even if in violation of a law, could justify the lawful shooting the first person as self defense.

There is a natural tendency for people here to identify with, and have sympathy for, someone who has employed a firearm in some kind of encounter. We've seen it in the case of a pharmacist who shot a robber and was later convicted of first degree murder; that of a person who pointed a gun at a trespasser and received a mandatory prison sentence; of someone who shot a teen who had fled from his house; and in cases still pending. We need to be more objective and to avoid that tendency.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.